Faculty Bibliography

In July 2013, the New York State Department of Health passed a regulation requiring that all personnel working in healthcare facilities be vaccinated against influenza or wear a protective mask. This law, however, did not include dental professionals working outside of healthcare settings, such as in a private dental office. It can be argued that dentists are at even higher risk for contracting the flu because they are in close contact with aerosolized particles. With this in mind, a survey was created for members of the New York State Dental Association (NYSDA) to assess the number of dentists voluntarily receiving the annual influenza vaccine, as well as office hygiene practices and attitudes towards mandates of the vaccine. The results indicated that NYSDA dentists do not regularly receive the annual influenza vaccine, nor do they always wear barrier masks while in the presence of patients. Dentists can reduce their role as a nidus for influenza by receiving the influenza vaccine and encouraging staff members to follow suit.

The United States health-care expenditure is rising precipitously. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in 2025, at our current rate of increased spending, 25% of the gross domestic product will be allocated to health care. Our per-capita spending on health care also far exceeds that of any other industrialized country. Health-care costs must be addressed if our country is to remain competitive in the global marketplace and to maintain its financial solvency. If unchecked, the uncontrolled rise in health-care expenditures will not only affect our capacity to provide our patients with high-quality care but also threaten the ability of our nation to compete economically on the global stage. This is not hyperbole but fiscal reality.As physicians, we are becoming increasingly familiar with the economics impacting health-care policy. Thus, we are in a unique position to control the cost of health care. This includes an increased reliance on creating and adhering to evidence-based guidelines. We can do this and still continue to respect the primacy of patient welfare and the right of patients to act in their own self-interest. However, as evidenced by the use of high-volume centers of excellence, each strategy adapted to control costs must be vetted and must be monitored for its unintended ethical consequences.The solution to this complex problem must involve the input of all of the health-care stakeholders, including the patients, payers, and providers. Physicians ought to play a role in designing and executing a remedy. After all, we are the ones who best understand medicine and whose moral obligation is to the welfare of our patients.

Physicians engage in risk stratification as a normative part of their professional duties. Risk stratification has the potential to be beneficial in many ways, and implicit recognition of this potential benefit underlies its acceptance as a cornerstone of the medical profession. However, risk stratification also has the potential to be harmful. We argue that 'profiling' is a term that corresponds to risk stratification strategies in which there is concern that ethical harms exceed likely or proven benefits. In the case of risk stratification for health goals, this would occur most frequently if benefits were obtained by threats to justice, autonomy or privacy. We discuss implications of the potential overlap between risk stratification and profiling for researchers and for clinicians, and we consider whether there are salient characteristics that make a particular risk stratification algorithm more or less likely to overlap with profiling, such as whether the risk stratification algorithm is based on voluntary versus non-voluntary characteristics, based on causal versus non-causal characteristics, or based on signifiers of historical disadvantage. We also discuss the ethical challenges created when a risk stratification scheme helps all subgroups but some more than others, or when risk stratification harms some subgroups but benefits the aggregate group.

Bioethics has become a common course of study in medical schools, other health professional schools, and graduate and undergraduate programs. An analysis of past ethical scandals, as well as the bioethics apparatus that emerged in response to them, is often central to the discussion of bioethical questions. This historical perspective on bioethics is invaluable and demonstrates how, for example, the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study was inherently racist and how other experiments exploited mentally disabled and other disadvantaged persons. However, such instruction can resemble so-called Whig history, in which a supposedly more enlightened mindset is seen as having replaced the "bad old days" of physicians behaving immorally. Bioethical discourse-both in the classroom and in practice-should be accompanied by efforts to historicize but not minimize past ethical transgressions. That is, bioethics needs to emphasize why and how such events occurred rather than merely condemning them with an air of moral superiority. Such instruction can reveal the complicated historical circumstances that led physician-researchers (some of whom were actually quite progressive in their thinking) to embark on projects that seem so unethical in hindsight. Such an approach is not meant to exonerate past transgressions but rather to explain them. In this manner, students and practitioners of bioethics can better appreciate how modern health professionals may be susceptible to the same types of pressures, misguided thinking, and conflicts of interest that sometimes led their predecessors astray.